Should the fairness doctrine be reinstated?
What is the fairness doctrine some might ask? The fairness was a United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) introduced in 1949 that required television and radio broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance. Contrasting points were to be introduced in what was viewed as—honest, equitable, and balanced and its main point was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. It was known to limit the power of the broadcast owner yet strengthen the viewer of the broadcasts. Seems very straightforward and after all, fair right? But it was abolished in 19___, many wonder why and wish for it to be reinstated while others completely
…show more content…
She thinks it would be fair to once again expose viewers with both side of the stories because often times the broadcast media tends to say only what is convenient to them. In her article favoring the fairness doctrine, she states that: “the absence of a fairness doctrine limits their exposure to a variety of views.” Because it basically opened viewers to all points of views—whether it was the republican point of view, democrat, corporate or labor, pro-choice or pro-life. She is in favor of it being reinstated from the very beginning, because it was created when not many sources of media existed; when people could only access a few news channels rather than us now. She feels that because of this, people had the right to be well informed in every different perspective. Plus the fairness doctrine sets a value that says can be founded on the principle that “in a democracy there is a public interest in a well-informed and participatory citizenry.” In other words, why do we want to be in a nation with citizens who really don’t even know what they are favoring? The doctrine is rooted in the idea that the broadcast media should inform but not indoctrinate; the media should provide ample information on public issues, but is not the public interest for government to allow corporations owning the broadcast frequencies to deliver to the public their corporate views on issues without giving viewers and listeners …show more content…
He believes the fairness doctrine is unfair and takes away one our rights from the Bill of Rights which is the freedom of expression. He also believes that it brought many problems and controversies with it when it was in place, so why bring it back? For example, he talks about the “chill effect,” which held the potential to freeze free speech and free flow of ideas. Basically people were free to bring about any ideas really without being forced by anyone and this hurt a lot of politicians. During the time of election, the right wing Democratic National Committee (DNC) used the fairness doctrine to mute the other side; this of course is not fair because politicians were instead using the doctrine as a strategy to win rather than for the benefit of us the
He mention the reason why people would claim why it is not a good to mange racist speech. The argument is that the freedom of speech is a stimulus in our democratic setup. Also another claim is that people suffer hate speech but it is necessary for the convenience of the society as a whole. To add it is essential to minorities because it's their only source of getting people to feel bad for them. Regulating racist speech would be impossible it would surge an imbalance between the continued free ideas and the parliamentary process dependent and on the other the need for the further cause of
There are three main parts of his argument. The first part of his argument delves into the nature of man and government. This part investigates the role of natural vs. implied rights and it’s role in the creation of a government. The second part of his argument deals with the “concurrent” vs. “numerical” majority, which deals with the ideals of a majority against the ideals of a minority and a numerical faction. The third part of his argument deals with liberty, rights, power and security. I believe this part is most crucial because not everyone is implied to be free, but rather people need to deserve their freedom. This can’t be true, because people on American history because of their race and gender were not allowed to live by some of theories granted in the Disquisition of Government.
1. What is the tone of this article? The tone of this article is kinda snotty but truthful in all ways.
Though, his motivation comes from exploring a topic that is quite controversial. He wants people to know that there are consequences for saying hurtful and offensive things and claiming that they have a right to do so because of the First Amendment. Using the First Amendment to excuse bad behavior is not acceptable. This is where we see harassment online because websites are rarely regulated to be sure that every user is saying things that don’t affect others. As Sanneh paraphrases what one book he references, “. . .the First Amendment is powerless to protect.” Sanneh also provides other examples of how people are harassed online, such as a story of a journalist, Lindy West, who gets called obscene things like “a fat bitch”. It’s hard to control what can be said online, which is why many people think it’s okay to say whatever they want. Most probably think it’s okay simply because they are a nobody online, and their words won’t affect anyone because it’s not directed towards
Justice Jackson's disagreement on the ruling of the Terminiello case is supported by many historical examples which demonstrate that freedom of speech is not an absolute right under the law. Although Terminiello had a right to exercise his right under the First Amendment, had the majority carefully considered this principle it should have rejected his claim. In this case, the majority's treatment of Terminiello's case skirted the real issue and did not benefit from true constitutional interpretation.
He acknowledges that the constitution regards slaves as part property and part human being, and in explaining the reasoning behind the compromise, never refers to himself as having those sentiments. Instead, he He contends that even though this document subject millions to oppression and slavery on a daily basis, those who are elite and own these slaves would not tolerate the slightest amount this injustice if it were applied to themselves. Americans constantly speak of liberty and of America as a fundamentally free, democratic nation, yet a large portion of the population is in fact oppressed and in slavery. He adds that there was no justification for the adoption of the Constitution, that “for the sake of achieving a political object” and the formation of a functioning, effective government, this was not reason enough to persecute millions of black people across the nation (Garrison 1).
Simones, A. (1995). Lecture on FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. October 27, 1995. Constitutional Law, Southwest Missouri State University.
by clarifying that there are just and unjust laws. He also goes on to explain the difference between the two, the effect of unjust laws on the people that they are aimed towards, as well as examples of such laws.
For the past twenty years Justice Thomas has been serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. He is seen as one of the most conservative members of the court and is often described as an originalist. His judicial philosophy places primary emphasis on the original intent of the Constitutions Founders. His view of the First Amendment is generally that it is very important and should continually be upheld. In a number of cases including religious speech, political leafleting, campaign contributions, pornography and commercial speech Justice Thomas has voted in favor of the First Amendment claims. However, that is not to say that he will always agree with free speech claimants. In a number of cases involving student and prisoner speech Justice Thomas ruled that the speech should be limited.
...cy. For this reason, it is clear that the media should not engage in any activity aimed at taking sides when dealing with the policy at hand. Journalists should always monitor all the policies and arguments from the foundation so as to ensure that they have left an opportunity of judgment from the public. This will ensure that public policy has been promoted without any form of discrimination or support (Abelson, 2006).
Affirmative action, the act of giving preference to an individual for hiring or academic admission based on the race and/or gender of the individual has remained a controversial issue since its inception decades ago. Realizing its past mistake of discriminating against African Americans, women, and other minority groups; the state has legalized and demanded institutions to practice what many has now consider as reverse discrimination. “Victims” of reverse discrimination in college admissions have commonly complained that they were unfairly rejected admission due to their race. They claimed that because colleges wanted to promote diversity, the colleges will often prefer to accept applicants of another race who had significantly lower test scores and merit than the “victims”. In “Discrimination and Disidentification: The Fair-Start Defense of Affirmative Action”, Kenneth Himma responded to these criticisms by proposing to limit affirmative action to actions that negate unfair competitive advantages of white males established by institutions (Himma 277 L. Col.). Himma’s views were quickly challenged by his peers as Lisa Newton stated in “A Fair Defense of a False Start: A Reply to Kenneth Himma” that among other rationales, the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action (Newton 146 L. Col.). This paper will also argue that the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action because it cannot be fairly applied in the United States of America today. However, affirmative action should still be allowed and reserved for individuals whom the state unfairly discriminates today.
In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a different panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February, 1989.(AuBuchon) They suggested that because of the large amount of voices in the media marketplace, the doctrine was to be considered unconstitutional; stating that, “The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of The Fairness Doctrine restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters and actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.” (Fairness) The government was trying to keep any broadcasting networks for personally attaching someone or some issue without giving that person or organization the opportunity to express their point of views and reasons. If ...
The issue of affirmative action has been a controversial one since its inception. The law was developed during the 1960’s as a result of the civil rights movement and the need to address injustices committed against minorities throughout the United States history. There were multiple attempts to correct the inequities between the majority and the various minorities including the 13, 14 and 15th Amendments. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 allowed for the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to create rules to end discrimination. Affirmative action came into being with the executive order 11246 issued by President Johnson. The Civil Rights Act and President Johnson’s executive order have been updated throughout the years to address gender, disabilities, age and other characteristics that could be considered discriminatory.
“Restorative justice is an approach to crime and other wrongdoings that focuses on repairing harm and encouraging responsibility and involvement of the parties impacted by the wrong.” This quote comes from a leading restorative justice scholar named Howard Zehr. The process of restorative justice necessitates a shift in responsibility for addressing crime. In a restorative justice process, the citizens who have been affected by a crime must take an active role in addressing that crime. Although law professionals may have secondary roles in facilitating the restorative justice process, it is the citizens who must take up the majority of the responsibility in healing the pains caused by crime. Restorative justice is a very broad subject and has many other topics inside of it. The main goal of the restorative justice system is to focus on the needs of the victims, the offenders, and the community, and focus
Promoting fairness in the classroom not only gives the teacher respect but also gives the students a sense of safeness and trust within the classroom. Creating an environment that revolves around fairness, trust and respect will be beneficial to all of the children in the class. The terms respect and trust are pretty straightforward. There doesn’t need to be a debate on what those two mean, but the same cannot be said for fairness. When one usually hears the word “fair” it is often looked at as synonymous to the term “equal” but the two are not the same, especially in a classroom setting. The term fairness on the classroom level means that the individual students are given what he or she may need in order to be successful; fairness does not